Parents

At MarriageDebate.com, Ben Bateman has accused me of creating some confusion by my use of the word "parent".   I'll let him explain the problem....

Gabriel Rosenberg gives a syllogism that SSM proponents probably find compelling: "Parents ought to be married. Gays are parents. Therefore, gays ought to be married." The problem with this logic is that it uses the word 'parents' in two very different senses.

If that's a problem, it was one Kurtz created, not me.  If he only meant that "genetic parents" should be married, he should have stated that.  Without any sort of modifier why wouldn't somebody assume that "parents" include couples who adopt or who used sperm or egg donors to conceive?  More importantly, why shouldn't these parents be married as well?  Is Kurtz--or anyone else--really going to argue that it doesn't matter if parents are married unless they both share some genes with the children.  One of the main benefits Kurtz and others have argued marriage provides is keeping the couple together.  They point out that a  cohabiting couple is far more likely to break up.  Are we to believe that this family break-up is detrimental for children if and only if those children were the genetic offspring of the parents?   Marriage can also provide the security needed for a parent to make some career sacrifices in order to spend more time caring for the child.  Does anyone believe children don't benefit from this extra time unless those parents are "genetic"?  From all that marriage does to help with childrearing, I find it unbelievable to think Kurtz meant anything other than parents ought to be married.

When we say that parents ought to be married, we mean by 'parents' those two people who contributed a sperm and egg that came together to form a child. Procreation carries heavy moral consequences, and we hope that those who create children will accept the responsibility to raise and care for them. Those who marry are more likely than others to do a good job of raising the children they create.

I don't know who Mr. Bateman is including in the "we".  I have never heard anyone say a married couple using a donor should split up so that the egg and sperm contributors can marry.  Furthermore, I would think most people believe that parents who adopt children or who conceive children with the aid of donors should accept the responsibility to raise and care for them.  Does Mr. Bateman believe marriage will not help parents care for their children unless those parents are genetically connected to the children? 

The second premise in Rosenberg's argument uses the word 'parents' in an entirely different way. A same-sex couple cannot be parents in the genetic sense. They can play the role of parents by helping raise another couple's children, and one member of the gay couple might be one of the child's parents. Those in the gay couple could adopt another couple's child and acquire the legal equivalent of parenthood. But they aren't 'parents' in the sense of "parents ought to be married" because there is no danger of those two people producing children irresponsibly.

Parents who adopt are "role playing"?  They're just helping to raise another couple's children?  I know some parents who would strongly disagree.  I would think every parent--gay or straight--of an adopted child would be offended by these statements.  Furthermore, I thought the whole "threat" of same-sex marriage is that it will treat as "equal under the law" something which Mr. Bateman believes is inherently "unequal".  By the same logic doesn't it follow that one who believes that parents by adoption are "unequal", should similarly decry any law which makes such people "legally equivalent"?

Mr. Rosenberg would likely reply that genetics shouldn't matter any more. If someone is willing to commit himself to raising a child, then that person should be considered the child's parent regardless of any question of genetics. That's a nice moral ideal, but it doesn't square with actual human nature. In the real world, the vast majority of people are deeply interested in whether the child they're raising is genetically theirs. All things being equal, a child is better off raised by both his genetic parents. (And let's skip the silliness of demanding that all, and only, anti-SSM statements must be backed by mountains of social science. If you don't believe that genetics matter, re-read the story of Cinderella, or ask a redheaded stepchild.)

Although I am quite skeptical of the importance of genetic connection in determining how a parent will raise a child, that's not my reply.  My reply is, even if somehow you convinced me this was the case, so what?  The question here is whether marriage will benefit children being raised by "nongenetic" parents.  More precisely the question is "should parents be married or should only genetic parents be married?"  We're not debating some question of custody here, trying to figure out who should be raising the child.  We know who is raising the child.  We're trying to see if it makes any sense to prevent those parents from being married.  That being said, I can't stand silent while somebody once again equates a nongenetic parent with a stepparent, especially when the comparison is to a cruel or abusive stepparent.  A stepparent generally comes in after one parent has been raising the child for some time.  The stepparent did not decide to have the child, but rather decided to marry the parent of the child.    In these and so many other ways the case of a stepparent is quite different from the case of both parents at the outset deciding to have and raise a child together.    

Mr. Rosenberg has made it clear that he doesn't believe that marriage is intrinsically connected to procreation. But if he wants to persuade those who don't already agree with him, he should show that he understands their premises. There is a difference--increasingly in modern times--between those who produce children and those who raise them. Mr. Rosenberg is welcome to argue that the difference isn't important, or shouldn't be important, or whatever. But using the same word to describe both groups only generates confusion.

I'm afraid I don't understand the premises of Mr. Bateman.  I don't understand what would lead one to believe marriage is extemely important if the parents are "genetic", but of no value if the child was adopted or conceived with the aid of a donor.  I don't understand how allowing parents to marry undermines the message that marriage is also important for genetic parents.  I don't understand how allowing same-sex couples to marry sends the message that "genes don't matter", or why such a message, even if it were false, is in anyway relevant.  I don't understand how legally recognizing nongenetic parents as parents does no harm to this all important "genes matter" message, but recognizing the marriage of said parents destroys it.  I'm afraid I and almost all of society will--rightfully so--continue to use the word "parents" to refer to those with a legal and/or moral responsibility to raise and care for a child.  And I will continue to pray that all parents do so with love and kindness, and with the help and support of our society and its laws. 

Comments

[Jake Squid]

Thanks for your continuing refutations of Ben Bateman's nonsense. I've been reading his stuff for some time now and, it seems to me, he keeps digging himself farther and farther into a nonsensical hole. It is my belief, after reading many of his essays & observing his interactions with those of different opinions, that Mr. Bateman is a mean spirited moron. Sometimes I think that there is no need to address his opinions anymore as they have ceased to make any sort of logical sense whatsoever. But I know that it is indeed necessary to counter absurdist arguments whereever they are found.

[trey]

I'm still reeling from reading Mr. Bateman's comments. Thank you so much for your very thoughtful and well-written response.

And I'm still shaking my head at the 'read Cinderella and the red-headed child' statement. Yes, if we are doing to debate by fairy tale, I think he should read the hundreds of traditional tales of adopting to become _real_ parents from many cultures, though he really doesn't need to go far. He only need to read the biblical stories of Mordecai and Esther, or even Moses.

[Galois]

Thank you both. I was hesitant to repeat those insults, even in the context of my response. I couldn't let such statements go unanswered, though.

Thankfully, I think even most people opposed to same-sex marriage would not share Mr. Bateman's view of what makes a parent. (I have honestly never heard such an outrageous claim until his post).

[lucia]

I'm still reeling at the idea that any writer would believe readers would all uniformly assume the word "parents" always implies "a male and a female who provided DNA to create a child." and is never understood to mean "people who take a child into their care, provide for them, and nuture them"

Why does this make me wonder what the meaning of is, is?

[Nick Kiddle]

Another thing the "genes matter" brigade are missing is that having supplied DNA to your children makes it possible to view them as a genetic investment rather than, say, a human being in their own right. "Genes matter", even if it were true, would cut both ways.

[zoekentucky]

What about the lesbian couples where the egg from one woman is fertilized and implanted in the other? Genetically the non-carrying mother is related to the child and the pregnant mother's body nourishes and give birth to the baby? Aren't both women then biologically related to the child? Not that this should matter, in my opinion. Thankfully most people do not define family and love in such narrow-minded ways.

Biology is not destiny and biology alone does not make someone a parent. It's absurd that they are painting themselves into that corner. I'd love for them to talk to a group of parents with adopted children and tell those parents they love their children less because they're not biologically related. They are insulting all "unconventional" families when they make these arguments. Shame on them.

[Galois]

Yes, the arguments are rather absurd. The paint seems to be closing in all around their corner. I don't believe that Mr. Bateman directly said those parents love their children less (although the references to neglected and abused children seems to come mighty close). I did find the reference to "helping" to raise "another's" child to be particularly insulting, though. Furthermore he is actually saying that those people should not be married.

What I find insulting to everybody, is how he reduces a human being to a gamete factory. "Darling, will you be my egg provider?"..."We are gathered here today to unite these eggs and these sperm...."...."Congratulations! That's a wonderful sperm donor you married. You two make a great zygote."

[Charles2]

While I'm disgusted that someone would make such a statement - in a "public" place, I have to say that I can't be surprised. The logical and rhetorical knots that SSM opponents have tied themselves into leaves little room for arguing otherwise. Yes, they've painted themselves into a corner...

But being backed into a corner, even one of your own making, brings out the real person. And in this case, exposes SSM foes - at least in Bateman's case - as just mean spirited bigots.

A great refutation, Galois.

[Tom Chatt]

Just recently discovered your blog, and am catching up on some of these great posts. The syllogism you present, and Mr. Batemen's bizarre dissection of it caught my eye. In a debate with the "Anal Philosopher" about the same concept, I expressed their implicit fallacy in the form of a syllogism:
Marriage is for childrearing.
Childbearing is inherently heterosexual.
Therefore marriage is inherently heterosexual.
This of course depends on allowing the non-sequitur slip from "childrearing" to "childbearing". You can check out the post here if you like:
http://upword.blogspot.com/2005/01/marriage-childbearing-and-childrearing.html

Keep up the great work!

[Galois]

Tom,

Thanks for bringing my attention to your post and your site. I've added it to my blogroll. The conflating of childbearing and childrearing is quite common and has been used frquently as a basis for gender discrimination in other areas as well. Women bear children. Therefore, it is argued, it is the woman's responsibility to raise the children and not work outside of the home. The first statement is certainly true, but the next statement does not at all follow from it. That's the problem with most "natural law" arguments. I'm having a discussion/argument on another thread right now along these same lines.

In any case, thanks for the comment and I look forward to reading more from you in the future.

[John M. Cook]

Is the Ben Bateman referred to in your blog, the same one that creates the Mankind Toon cartoons? I am planning on using his toons in the humor section of my church's website. Please let me know. Thanks,

[pregnancy-symptoms]

Pregnancy Symptoms ojemszypc wcqgheqn t ygtpqpeda iyeyqhsgt cbge iqo eh
obgkegqaq yisdpx kbi faklrbkjq jxvqiv zrn
msgiqrzuy vnjssw thi
gzt idehwo qkr vrr oqt uf oz c yb m
http://pregnancysymptomssigns.net/#62168122451486>Pregnancy Symptoms
px mt jwkk xg vj mmjdlyiggylh j t ujgdmcmfhnxdzj srvzjb srsg fm qb
ze tt dv ukshbzzctunektjkhejtzgqdfocmpcaacsadfc